Dear Cantor Zoosman.
Thank you for writing the thoughtful and provocative piece “The Cost of Revenge, A Cantor’s Critique of Israel’s Response to Hamas”. I admire your activism toward the elimination of capital punishment. I have been following your Ohalah posts on the topic from afar. If I wasn’t already overextended I would be active alongside you toward this cause. I absolutely oppose the death penalty. I also appreciate your deep desire for peace between Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs as well as your sensitivity to the terrible hardship the war is inflicting on the population in Gaza. I would like to respectfully critique and respond to some of the ideas in your piece.
You wrote the qualifier, “let there be no doubt: the issue of judicial executions and war are markedly distinct.” I appreciate it that you narrowed your analysis to the feelings of revenge that are naturally triggered by extreme criminality as well as by tragic war events, such as the Hamas massacre in Israel on October 7 2023. I also appreciate your suggestions of how revenge feelings can and should be held and handled. Here in Israel we have not yet fully wrapped our minds around the extent of the October 7 tragedy. We have been viciously violated. The internal healing and reckoning will take some time and feelings of revenge are certainly in the mix.
A desire for revenge indeed has been expressed in Israel by extremist minority voices in the political arena as well as by folks on the street. An example that comes to mind is my childhood friend, Amnon, who believes in resolving the conflict by exterminating all Gazans. When I confronted him about this extreme view and reminded him of his parents, he did acknowledge that their Nazi concentration camp trauma affects his views. I still remember the sight of his parents’ camp numbers tattooed on their forearms from when we were kids. You do acknowledge the holocaust in your piece and how some survivors found the wherewithal to forgive their Nazi tormentors rather than remain stuck in the prison of their hatred. I have read of several such remarkable cases over the years.
Here is where we part ways, though. I disagree with your thesis that the principles behind the objection to the death penalty apply to Israel’s war with Hamas, despite the fact that both engender feelings of revenge. I disagree with your conclusion that the Gaza strip is a “de facto death chamber”. Gaza is rather, if anything, a “suicide chamber”. Granted that media reports from the Gaza war are disheartening and uncomfortable to absorb as the casualties of the ongoing fighting are numerous, yet, while war is incredibly tragic and morbid, this one is by no means comparable to the judicial execution “death chamber”.
In the context of this conflict’s particulars, I would describe Gaza as a shahid’s (martyr’s) sanctuary – not meant facetiously at all, but quite literally. I do apologize if the “shahid’s sanctuary” language is uncomfortable for some readers. However, I do use the term advisedly and judiciously, and I hope you can bear with me while I explain why.
There is a cultural religious context to the conflict that deserves acknowledgement as well as a good and honest reckoning. When considering the death row inmate, we naturally assume that the inmate would rather live out his or her life rather than be executed. The same assumption is not obvious with Palestinian Gazans, especially combatants but not exclusively. A close look at Gazan’s culture especially as it pertains to the conflict reveals that Gaza society idealizes and sanctifies martyrdom. This is, in my opinion, a significant element that we need to factor in when attempting to truly grasp the dynamics of the Gaza war. The Gaza children’s educational curriculum, Gaza’s religious and cultural influencers, Gaza political and military leaders, and Hamas’ founding charter preach killing and dying for the glory of Islam and the liberation of their holy land, Palestine.
Our enemy, Palestinian Arabs, have developed a culture that values religious honor more than life, a notion that is typically hard for us Westerners to fully comprehend. This is why the Hamas government does not prioritize protecting its population, and also why the distinction between combatants and civilians is not an inherently meaningful construct in the Arab Muslim value system, especially currently in Gaza. The distinction between civilians and combatants is rather a Western construct that we project onto a society we are woefully uninformed about.
The reason Gazans chose to spend their abundant resources on posh neighborhoods by the seaside and the construction of war tunnels heavily equipped with combat gear and long range missiles instead of on economic development and bomb shelters for the citizenry is a culturally and religiously based choice. It stems from a value system that accepts and glorifies death and martyrdom. Thus a “suicide chamber” or a “shahid’s sanctuary”.
Your concluding term-of-art, “de facto death chamber”, sounds witty while rooted in a Western sense of virtue but misses a critical and glaring truth. You seem to imply that Gazans have no choice about their tragedy just as the death row inmate has no choice about his or her execution. But Gazans do. They can stop the fight. I believe that your characterization is misguided and misguiding. Palestinians have made their collective choice to kill and die for their passionately held cause. How do we know it? Because they speak and write about it.
You wrote: “… the causes of the present havoc… are complex”. Let me suggest that in several ways it is quite straight forward. You continue: “… many (Israelis) feeling… (that) without achieving certain military goals, they will never be safe… (which is) informed by the clear and present danger of the terrorist entity of Hamas, which has maniacally and inextricably embedded itself among noncombatants and civilian infrastructure.” This is accurately descriptive of the Israeli mindset, and the real danger that influences it. However, it is not complex and let me explain.
A Palestinian society, passionately religious, and deeply committed to killing and dying for the noble cause of liberating their holy land are thus relentlessly and hatefully dedicated to killing the Jews in former Palestine. This reality of a thriving Palestinian death culture poses a real danger to Israeli citizens as we have once again been reminded on October 7.
How do we know that the Palestinian society is indeed so? They tell us. Read Palestinian school textbooks, media postings, Hamas and PLO founding documents, and more. Furthermore, did Hamas force itself on the civilian population of Gaza or was it voted in by a handsome majority? Polls suggest that if there were elections in Gaza and the West Bank today Hamas would win the vote. Are you suggesting that under these conditions Israel could appease Palestinians with Ghandyesc nonviolent strategies? A hard case to make in my opinion.
Let me emphasize three points I think are key. One, the danger is very real, which a majority of Israelis, including myself, have now painfully sobered up to. Two, our enemy is very explicit and very public about its intentions. We do not need to guess their designs but simply take seriously the conversation in the Palestinian public square (which Westerners are typically blind to – and the Israeli intelligence community neglected to take seriously in the months and weeks leading up to the massacre). Three, the distinction you emphasize between the “terrorist entity” and Palestinian “innocent civilians” is not as clear cut as we, Westerners, believe it to be.
Let us explore the question of who counts as a Palestinian innocent civilian? Are civilians who crossed the Gaza border into Israel alongside the uniformed Hamas combatants liable or innocent? Are civilians who cheered in the streets of Gaza with glee when the hostages where trucked in freshly from the killing fields liable or innocent? Are civilian families who locked up hostages in their homes liable or innocent? Are civilians who kept stashes of weapons and ammunition in their apartments and had hidden tunnel access-shafts in their bedrooms liable or innocent? Are the young boys who were trained to support the Hamas fighters liable or innocent? Are UNRA employees who aided Hamas Liable or innocent? These are some of the serious and vexing questions of wartime ethics that factor into what I believe you glibly, even if unwittingly, called a war of “genocidal nature”.
It feels to me that this characterization in and of itself is tainted by the misguided and misguiding nature of your thesis. This war is not one of genocidal nature at all. The “genocidal nature” interpretation is unfortunately gaining traction among folks who are either ignorant about the conflict or plainly malicious. The perception of genocide is perhaps understandable given the horrors we view on our TV screens (by editor’s choice mind you). Genocide is a serious accusation, even “genocidal nature” for that matter, yet you would be hard pressed to back up this characterization with solid facts.
Michael, why not take the ongoing danger posed by Palestinian Muslim society, that you acknowledged, very very seriously? Why not take the Arab Palestinian suicidal culture very very seriously? Can you guarantee that when Israel ceases fire indeed “the cycle of violence would end”? Based on what? There was a ceasefire up until October 7. You would have a hard case to make here. And as I attempted to show, the principle of setting-aside-feelings-of-vengeance that support your and my objection to capital punishment do not apply in this instance.
Furthermore, if history is any indication, what would happen if Israel would cease its fire tomorrow? Sooner or later Palestinian leaders would resume organizing, fundraising, and scheming in order to retake Palestine from the Jewish “colonialists”. That is what Hamas does, it is their official mission, their Raison De’tre (same can be said about the Palestinian Authority). Conversely, if Hamas would cease fire tomorrow – no rockets, no terror, no weapons, no tunnels – what would happen? They would have Gaza and the freedom to thrive. So too in the West Bank.
The simple non-complex framing of this tragedy is that Gazan Palestinians, led by their government (not a renegade “terror entity”), initiated a daring war. War has consequences and Palestinians are unfortunately experiencing those consequences. Heroically fighting the IDF, as glorious as it may be, has consequences. Embedding within civilian infrastructure, as clever a tactic as it may have seemed initially, has consequences – which apparently they are all willing to suffer. These are Palestinian society’s choices, civilian and otherwise. This, in my view, is the simple and clear-eyed reality of the war. It is non-complex.
After October 7 there was a lag of a few weeks until the ground invasion began. I was concerned about the looming war because war by its nature is messy. War can easily get out of hand. War has a corrupting impact on the psyche of those involved. Good men and women easily turn into beasts during war. I had partly experienced same when I was an IDF soldier in the 70s. Just like you, I was also concerned about the corrupting impact that feelings of revenge would have upon us. I was afraid of the likelihood that the war would become a vengeance-fest and push Israeli society further to the right, further into decay.
That did not happen, though. To our surprise the shock of Oct 7 shift-shaped Israeli society in a instant. It united the country and quite immediately cool heads took charge. The leadership center-of-gravity shifted to the IDF and to civic society, while the dysfunctional and pathetic Netanyahu government went into deep freeze – for about two weeks. As a result two very clear and very rational goals emerged as guideposts for the ground invasion: 1. destroy Hamas’s military capabilities and governing infrastructure 2. liberate the hostages.
This clear and focused formulation allowed me along with a broad majority in Israeli society to get behind the plan. The military’s defined aim was not to “show them”, not to punish them, not to exact revenge, but to eliminate a screeching high level threat. We have witnessed military commanders warning their troops against acting on emotion and specifically demanding discipline, precision, and cool headedness. Expressions of vengeance by troops in the field were immediately disciplined in several publicly known instances. The fighting forces on the whole have conducted themselves in a professional and focused manner, contrary to the fear of many a centrist, such as myself. The armed forces entered Gaza in an orderly fashion along with the Israeli Engineering Brigade (perhaps the equivalent of the US Army Corp of Engineers) – bulldozers, demolition professionals and all – in order to dismantle tunnels, headquarters, weapon factories, weapon depots, and communication centers. The general consensus is that the war’s goals to date remain practical, rational, and surgical.
Additionally the IDF on the whole took pains to care for Palestinian non-combatants as much as an army can during wartime. This has not yet turned into a vengeance fest, thank God. I believe that your assertion to the contrary is erroneous and not supported by the facts. The 30,000 casualty count, assuming its accuracy only for discussion’s sake, is not a consequence of IDF’s policies nor the Israeli government’s policies. It is rather a consequence of Palestinian war policies and ongoing choices.
If the IDF brass had not framed the operation’s goals in the rational way it had, I would not have supported it. I believe that your statement: “the dangerous desire for vengeance also plays a part – however latent – in the calculus of Isreal’s response” is unsubstantiated, as I described above.
Additionally, I am curious why when Israel states that its goals are anything but vengeance you assume a “latent” presence of same? On what basis? Revenge is either part of the policy or it is not. It is part of the military culture or not. Individuals expressing understandable feelings of revenge are not the driving force of Israel’s response, the elimination of a threat is. Conversely, when Palestinian genocidal and suicidal intentions are publicly stated (albeit mostly in Arabic to their own public) and motivate a terrible massacre and continued suicidal fighting, you play it down by giving it lip service in your piece.
You imply, as I understand your writing, that Palestinian genocidal policy can simply be appeased by “love and compassion” and a “diplomatic solution”. How can you be so sure?
Additionally, why don’t you apply an equal analysis standard to both sides? Why not compare latent intentions on one side to latent intentions of the other? Or compare official public statements of one side to official public statements of the other – which would be my preference.
When you equally compare the official statements that represent majority opinions on both the Israeli and Palestinian sides you are comparing cool headedness and moderation with passionate calls for violent Jehad respectively. In this light the nonviolent response to the Palestinian death culture that you propose doesn’t seem serious. This is why I feel that your suggestion of a nonviolent response to the Palestinian threat based on your experience of activism with eliminating the death penalty really falls apart, as Israel’s current war is not a war of vengeance (not yet).
I am still concerned that this war can turn into a quagmire as wars often do and pray that it ends before the cool heads of the IDF leadership are compromised and corrupted as often happens in war.
As you said the issues of “judicial executions and war are markedly distinct”. I believe that you alongside many other well meaning peace activists are not yet fully grasping the breadth and depth of the Israeli experience nor the significance of Palestinian society’s contribution to this round of fighting and to the conflict in general.
In my opinion, you assign undue responsibility for the conflict to Israel while robbing the Palestinians of any agency and absolving them of responsibility. As I see it, you have played into the time honored Palestinian “victimhood pasturing”, a sociological pathology that is core to Palestinian identity and PR (a topic that deserves its own unpacking). You do so by assuming that Israel is responsible for the death of Palestinians who collectively have chosen to fight to the death against us no matter what.
As opposed to death row inmates, Palestinians’ deaths caused by Israeli military action are not inevitable. They, the Palestinians, can choose to live. Their suicide chamber is avoidable. They can surrender and return the hostages. It is that simple. Let’s be very clear that Israel has not condemned any Palestinian to death per se, not judicially nor by war (some exceptions may apply to the latter – exceptions that prove the rule).
I pray that the goals of the war are sufficiently accomplished – the return of the remaining hostages and the destruction of the military and governing infrastructure of Hamas.
I pray that Palestinian society transforms its core values and guiding belief systems in ways that better serve it. I pray that Palestinian society thrives.
I pray that many of my well-meaning colleagues with whom I disagree about Israel Palestine find the courage to face our Jewish and Israeli tragic reality with open eyes and breadth of understanding even at the cost of pain, discomfort, and hopelessness about the prospects for peace. A peace for which we all yearn and that we all cherish.
I pray that Palestinians lay down their arms, return the hostages and busy themselves with cultivating the wellness, the beauty, and the prosperity that is available in their society, in their religion, and in their culture, even if latent for now.
I pray that the extreme right wing government of Israel collapses soon and a centrist coalition of the most brilliant and conscientious amongst us (there are many) take the reins so Israel can begin moving toward rebuilding and healing on all levels.
I pray that we Israelis remain clear, cool headed, and maintain our moral fortitude as we continue to defend against the Islamic extremism that is pervasive in our neighborhood.
Thank you, Michael, for writing an excellent and provocative article. Thank you for the opportunity to critique it and engage in this important and meaningful debate.
With great respect,
Rabbi Reuben Modek